121–130 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
denial of liberty is expensive.
If a country thinks it's okay to throw half of its brain power down the sinkhole, sure, why not, go ahead and do it. Just don't start crying afterwards that other countries are zooming past you on the highway to progress.
Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…
Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others ar…
You should take a look at Utah's liquor laws some time. Perfect example of what happens when people who don't drink decide to legislate alcohol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…
There's already a self-selecting mechanism to eliminate most voters. It's called partisanship. Those people who vote for their favorite party no matter what cancel out each other's vote so they don't count. That leaves only the people who're making a decision each election that matter.
In application it's based on the false assumption that there are an equal amount of partisans on both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol, this is so incredible. You've essentially suggested the reintroduction of a voter literacy test... now consider the context of that suggestion.
To be honest I'd never heard about voter literacy tests. I'm not in the states so the context is not something I'm aware of. I know it creates more problems than it solves, I just wish people would take the time and effort to have an informed opinion before voting. Even if that informed opinion is opposed to mine. To split hairs you don't have to be literate to name a policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." – the inimitable Peter Thiel
I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more ef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's already a self-selecting mechanism to eliminate most voters. It's called partisanship. Those people who vote for their favorite party no matter what cancel out each other's vote so they don't count. That leaves only the people who're making a decision each election that matter.
This is a good joke, but please don't believe it's actually true. In application it's based on the false assumption that there are an equal amount of partisans on both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about us…
Why do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?
::slow clap:: It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality in the 21st century. The faster we can transition to clean, renewable energy, the better for everyone in the world.
There are still groups of humans living relatively or completely unconnected from the world that wouldn't seem out of place 10,000 years ago. It's not exactly appalling that societies that don't respect basic freedoms exist, it's appalling that they're allowed to participate at all in the global economy and society. >
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/gold-miners-murder-...